Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:27, 7 January 2013

Skip to open disputes
skip to newest thread
(purge cache)

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Shortcuts

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Draft:Marylee Graffeo Fairbanks	Closed	Childrenandart (t)	3 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 3 hours
Jessica Nabongo	New	Log6849129 (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,	Valereee (t)	15 hours
Neith	New	Potymkin (t)	1 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 21:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Peter Proctor

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Chantoke on 09:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Peter Proctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Peter Proctor#References (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Chantoke (talk · contribs)
Nucleophilic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a physician here that also has an article about his work, Peter Proctor. He also sells hair loss products online at drproctor.com. Over the past several weeks, I have been editing Androgenic alopecia and Management of baldness and have come across several hidden ads for his website drproctor.com, which I have removed. From there, I have begun to look at his biographical article, and found unreferenced claims about being on medical faculty at Baylor and UTMB Galveston. I asked for information on the article talk page, to which a user "Nucleophilic" responded. He has had a large role in writing the Peter Proctor article, but denies being the physician. He provided references that showed papers published by Proctor that had the addresses of the institutions on them. They did not list his faculty status. I referenced the alumni directory, the largest database of Baylor faculty in existence, and his name was not listed. I am extremely careful with my edits, so I also called the chair of the Department of Ophthalmology, which was one of the departments where Nucleophilic claimed Proctor was on faculty. Dr. Jones was unavailable when I called, but his senior secretary also did not recognize the name. Nucleophilic has re-entered the faculty information multiple times on the article, despite my removing it, and despite not addressing my concerns on the talk page. I feel like this is a case of Russell's teapot. The central issue is whether Proctor's mailing address listed on his publications qualifies him to be listed as faculty at the two institutions on his Wikipedia page. Because an individual can be listed on a paper for an address during medical school, residency, or fellowship, or even if volunteering in the lab for free, they do not satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Especially for the page of a doctor selling online medications and practicing telemedicine, for which a website as large and influential as Wikipedia represents a major conflict of interest.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried the Wikipedia dispute resolution pyramid, but have been receiving veiled ad hominem attacks from Nucleophilic on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Provide an outside opinion. I am extremely careful with my edits. Also, personally I have not had experience disputing someone that may or may not be the subject of the article I am revising.

I just want to make sure I am not missing something or breaking proper etiquette.

Opening comments by Nucleophilic

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Wow. Actually, I had walked away from this issue, pretty much figuring it was not worth contending, one way or another. Basically, I was just going on what the subject's published papers report. According to WP:reliable sources, these are the highest level of authority on wikipedia. This aside, intuitively contemporary papers seem the most reliable source for decades-old information.

Can't say how reliable the much later sources cited by the complainaint are, since I have not seen them, nor did he provide a link, etc.. Or even (IIRC) a formal citation. In contrast, I provided links to material directly listing the subject's professional address as such. Similarly, claiming to have talked to this or that person is prima facia WP:original research and not allowed.

That said, I wonder where this editor gets the "veiled threat", etc. Editor seems a little sensitive over minor legitimate differences of opinion. Things like this usually get resolved on the talk pages, not immediately brought here. Unfortunately, everybody seems to be taking a wikibreak for the holidays. As for complaintant's editing of management of baldness-- I do not understand his claims. Unfortunately, his manner of editing was hundreds of edits over a few days with few to no edit summaries or comments to the talk page. As well as throughly confusing me, this seems to be generating some concerns over there. Anyway, I suggest this matter be taken back to the talk page where it belongs. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been significant discussions on the Talk page, going back to at least 16 Dec 2012, and the issue is not yet resolved; so it is appropriate to solicit more input here at DRN. --Noleander (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, there was one communication on Dec 16. But the real discussion did not start until Dec. 29, right over the holidays, when many editors take a break. This was followed almost immediately by chantoke transferring it here. Also, to descalate, I suggest "faculty" be changed to "faculty/staff" to reflect any uncertainty. As I noted, I was walking away from this matter until chantoke escalated it. Nucleophilic (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, incorrect. The discussion requesting his proper academic credentials has been at least since May of 2012, as in this request by editor Smokefoot. Chantoke (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Proctor discussion

Hello All, I am a volunteer for the Dispte Resolution project. I am placing a COI (Conflict of interest) investigation template on this page as that needs be sorted. Looks like the article has other issues such as a promotional tone and overall notability of the subject. A lot of careful work has to be done here -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, you bear all the earmarks of a sock or meat puppet. You and chantoke have a similar edit history of editing pages of only local Indian interest, when there had been no such on the relevant page before or anything even close to it. What are the chances of this happening at random? Likewise, no prior edits on a subject, then suddenly show up in the middle of a dispute to "mediate". Perhaps you thought nobody would notice. Also see: wp:concensus. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor of Peter Proctor, I concur with nucleophilic. It is not clear that Chantoke knows how wikipedia bio pages differ from regular articles. This article was also brought into mediation without giving any other editors a chance to provide input. Also, as nuclephilic notes on the article talk page, it mentions "hair loss" only once, and that in passing without mentioning the subject of the bio. If he is using this page to promote a business (or whatever), he is doing a very poor job of it. For now, I will pass over the issue of Wikishingaki as an unnecessary complication. Bandn (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is important because he sells medicine online. Reporting faculty positions at two prestigious institutions is something that would help sell product because it would enhance his reputation. Chantoke (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikishagnik: I too am a volunteer here at DRN. I notice you just added your name to the list of DRN volunteers [1] two days ago. Assuming good faith, we can conclude that you acting with the best interests of WP here. On the other hand, since your impartiality has been called into question, it may be best for the integrity of the DRN process if you ~~stepped aside~~ participate simply as a normal editor, and let one of the other 40+ volunteers serve as the primary mediator for this case. --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, will defer to your judgement but I am sticking to my point -Wikishagnik (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From the topmost opening statement, I take it that the primary issue is what sources are available to justify including the person in the Category:University of Texas Medical Branch faculty. Is that the only issue? or are there additional concerns about WP:PUFFERY and sourcing? Focusing on the faculty category: all inclusions in categories must be supported by sources, per WP:Verifiability. For facts in the body of the article, footnotes are often used to provide the sources; but even for categories (which may not be mentioned in the article body) sources must also be provided if requested. I take it that the only source provided so far is an email address at the university ... which doesn't quite demonstrate that the person is a member of the faculty. Nucleophilic: are you aware of any source that says "proctor is a member of the UTMB faculty"? --Noleander (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment by Noleander: The sentence that is being discussed is at (Link 1). It reads as follows:

"He has been on the faculty of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Medical Branch. He is engaged in drug research and development."

The three citations provided in support of this sentence by Nucleophilic at Talk:Peter Proctor are first, 1 second, 2 and third 3.

The references have several issues.

With regard to the first, it lists his address as being at the Department of Opthalmology, but does not list his specific affiliation with the institution. According to his self-published resume at Doximity (https://www.doximity.com/pub/peter-proctor-md) he was a "Research Instructor" at Baylor at that time.

I do not see where on the paper his specific affiliation is is indicated.

For example, you may have your address listed in a lab if you work there as an independent researcher, or volunteer, which is also very possible considering Dr. Proctor has been reported in the article as an independent researcher.

In the second link provided, he is not primary or last author, but third, which means he was not the primary researcher. Again, the address could have referred to him being a volunteer or independent researcher working with the lab.

The third link at 3 did not work.

The references are limited as they were published by Dr. Proctor himself.

Someone has stated that I do not seem to understand the concept of WP:BLP. It is true that I am a relative novitiate to biography articles so I will quote from the source to avoid my own potential misinterpretation. From Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources:

"Exercise caution in using primary sources."

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards."

While those articles certainly qualify as reliable sources in reflecting the content of his research, they do not specifically list a faculty appointment. Doximity is a self-entry website, and also does not qualify.

I also looked in the Baylor Alumni Directory which can be found online for current faculty at Alumni directory or of which a physical copy can be ordered at Alumni website, or by e-mailing Barbara Walker or Nyree Chanaba at alumni@bcm.edu.

Although the directory is very comprehensive, as an older clinical instructor, I acknowledge he could have been missed, although I do not believe this would be the norm as Baylor likely very actively seeks alumni donations.

Nucleophilic, looking at the article history, you appear to be its major author, so I would respectfully request you to supply something more reliable. I do not want to deny the good doctor his faculty history as he certainly is a figure in the history of redox research, and this should be fairly acknowledged if accurate. At the same time, the conflict of interest issues have been discussed above and on the talk page.

My opinion ultimately cannot be entirely objective, because there is not enough good evidence in one direction or the other. From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

In this situation, the burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim in the setting of an encyclopedia article, particularly with regards to WP:BLP. I would not include the sentences about him being on faculty until references are provided that directly reflect this, and are not authored by the subject. I would not close the door on it, but I think it would be unwise to include something like a faculty appointment out there for a physician practicing telemedicine, without more explicit confirmation. Chantoke (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) (Ramwithaxe; changed to avoid confusion in this discussion)[reply]

Comment For any concern about me being a sock puppet please refer me immediately to the Adminitrators Noticeboard. They will handle me accordingly. Coming back to the article, did you know that the explanation of the puzzling repeated failure in human trials of neuroprotective agents and antioxidants effective in animals by noting the uniquely high endogenous levels of the antioxidant neuroprotectant uric acid in humans is attributed to Dr Proctor - by Dr. Proctor himself? It is also interesting to note that him being a part of a group that is credited with the fantastic supposition regarding diabetes, inflammation, and fibrosisan underlying common etiology involving electronically activated processes in such symptomology and is attributed to Dr Proctor - by Dr. Proctor himself - seven times to be exact. Did you know that according to the good doctor he has reported the conditional pro-oxidant properties of uric acid and further proposed that oxidative stress figures in the pathogenesis of hyperuricemic syndromes in general? And the list goes on. My point being that apart from Dr. Proctor no-one knows about these fantastic contributions to humanity (and Nucleophilic of course). And Nucleophilic, BTW for being close to the subject you dont have to be a blood relative. In fact by virtue of our discussion so far, we are close. If I was to compose a Wikipedia article about you before today, an article would have said Nucleophilic is a scolarly contributor to Wikipedia, but now I will be tempted to add ... who jumps to conclusions about editors being sock puppets based on the ethnicity of subject of the articles they contribute to. As if such editors cannot understand basic concepts like MOS and templates that apply to all Wikipedia articles. You see how NPOV can be compromied even with very little interaction? -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Wikishagnik comment: I concur. I am not a sockpuppet or meat puppet, which I believe refers to a duplicate account. I would be happy to submit my IP address or whatever other information you need to verify this. Chantoke (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I'm going to continue to assume good faith. This matter has gone entirely too far for the issue involved. As I noted, I was walking away from it, when Chantoke filed this request for mediation, far too soon in the process, IMHO. Contrary to assurances, there was no real attempt to resolve the matter on the talk pages. Just a couple of exchanges and pow, here we are. Also, if he has any support for his accusations concerning me, let him present it. And no, I do not expect his and Wikishagnik's IP numbers will prove the same.

Likewise, no other editors were given the chance to give their input (it was over the holidays). Been here for six years and I have never seen anything like this. Stated simply, there were no edit wars, or anything else to justify this tendentous escalation. My suggestion is to take this back to the talk pages and let the process work it's way thru there. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just noticed that another article editor,Bandn, is now posting both here and on the talk page. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply references, or concede that you do not have any. The issue has been on the talk page for several weeks. "Just a couple of exhanges and pow, here we are." and "Stated simply, there were no edit wars, or anything else to justify this tendentous [sic] escalation." Here is my first edit 1. Here is your edit removing my citation needed tags 2. This is me changing it back 3. This is you undoing my edit 4. This is me finally switching it back to how it appears currently 5. Literally we have gone back and forth 5 times, and we have been discussing this since December 16th.

Other users on the talk page have also been discussing this with you since May of 2012 Smokefoot Chantoke (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "accusations", please stop making this personal. I am only asking for quality references. If you can't provide any, and none are forthcoming, then by definition the process has already worked itself out and we can move on. Chantoke (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop Wikipedia:Canvassing by recruiting editors of the page that favored your opinion in the past, as you did a few hours ago here and back in May of 2012 here for this previous talk page discussion. I have contacted all of the remaining past editors of the page as well, to make sure all opinions have a chance to be represented. Best, Chantoke (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you bring up the subject. It is not Wikipedia:Canvassing to notify past editors of a page who might have special knowledge. Rather than canvassing, I contacted one editor who might be able to clarify some of the issues. Unfortunately, he has yet to respond. However, it is Wikipedia:Canvassing to bring in a new editor to support your point, as seems to be the case with Wikishagnik, who had no connection with the article at all or anything remotely related to it and whose record of edits resembles your own. Seen editors banned for no worse. As I noted, what are the chances that two editors with a history of editing wikipedia pages of only local Indian interest would show up on a page at exactly the same time? The mind boggles. Finally, note my suggestion to replace "faculty" with "faculty/staff" just to resolve any ambiguities and to conclude this matter. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: though you claim to have notified "all of the remaining past editors of the page", this is not on their talk pages. Pehaps you can clarify this statement. Nucleophilic (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, incorrect again. You contacted one editor, Djem3, after the debate had started, because he had agreed with you in a past talk page discussion. You diid not contact any of the other editors that had contributed to the talk page. Those are the editors that I contacted, not everyone who had ever edited the article. Neither is mandatory, but you were selectively canvassing. Where did you get the idea, other than your circumstantial evidence, leading to false accusation, that I was related to Wikishagnik? Not all Indians are related, and not all people interested in India know each other. You are walking on very thin ice there. Chantoke (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straw. I tried unsucessfully to contact drjem3 because he knows about the subject than I do and might be able to answer some of the questions. Did this right out in the open too. As for your sock or meat puppetry-- don't insult our intelligence. What are the chances that two editors with the same rather specific posting interests (obscure local indian subjects) should show up on the same completely-unrelated article at the same time, particularly when one of them has never posted to anything similar before. Likely the probability is in the millions, if not billions, to one. So this is either collusion, or a Guiness book of records coincidence. Which one seems more likely? Nice try though. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute has gone on too long and I am losing sleep and developing a stomach ulcer from it. I would like to withdraw personally from dispute and defer to the opinion of the remaining DRN discussion participants regarding past faculty affiliations. Best, Chantoke (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree this has gone on too long. I concur with Nucleophilic's compromise proposal that "faculty" be replaced by "faculty or staff" or words to this effect. I have also removed the COI tag since it is not in contention here. Bandn (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Apparently too late, but just in case, I register my concurance with Nucleophilic and Bandn. Tempest in a tea-pot. Drjem3 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________

Comment: Now that we have established good faith all around and agreed upon socket puppetry actions required, if any, can we focus on the content of this article (WP:FOC)? Can we get rid of the entirely self referenced content and wait for the Doctor to achieve more in life for which he gets duly recognized, which in turn can be quoted here from independent and neutral third party sources? -Wikishagnik (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot experience I have repeatedly expressed grave concerns about the articles on Peter Proctor, his thesis advisor John McGinness (whose notability was also disputed and this article got off to a rocky start except for the efforts of Proctor), and many articles that cite their work. All of my efforts were thwarted by coordinated efforts of user:Nucleophilic, User:Drjem3, and Proctor himself. My concerns about the Peter Proctor article were expressed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Proctor&oldid=495533611 under "#What is his current position and what are his awards" My view is that Proctor, Nucleophilic, and Drjem3 were propping up a reputation for Proctor, which lacks external support. He has no accolades, awards, editorships, lectures, appointments that in any way indicate even a modest level of external recognition. The article seemed problematic from the WP:COI perspective. In the end, I concluded that the article Peter Proctor was "lame" but lame biographies are an occassional artifact of Wikipedia. My greater concern was that these same editors have implicated Proctor and John McGinness as being some sort of scientific pioneers and innovators. Wikipedia articles related to polyacetylene (Nobel Prize stuff a few years back) and molecular electronics, cite the work of McGinness and Proctor. These articles are guarded and groomed by these threesome. I have taught these topics in a university and have never heard of these people. They are not mentioned in any textbooks. At the same time, Proctor and Nucleophilic led a subtle effort to denigrate the achievements of people who are generally accepted as pioneers and innovators - such as the Nobel prize winners. I have edited a lot in Wikipedia - but my experience with Proctor and Nucleophilic and User:Drjem3 remains the absolute low point of otherwise satisfying work. I eventually removed everything related to Peter Proctor from my watchlist because the articles were obviously the personal domains of this threesome. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Wikishagnik comment: I agree, viewing the dispute resolution guidelines discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution (pyramid), it is centrally important to not focus on the editors but the article. I agree with the recommendations given by Wikishagnik above. Chantoke (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have encountered many problems with articles related to Peter Proctor, which I have discussed in detail at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 24#Peter Proctor and conducting polymers. I tend to share the views of Smokefoot on these matters. In my opinion, Proctor and McGinness get far more coverage on Wikipedia than they deserve. --Ben (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observation - In trying to summarize various discussions taking place above I note that a large part of the discussion centered on which discovery should be credited to whom and who was the first to find it etc. There was also a large discussion that centered on who deserved the Nobel Prize etc. All participants to this discussion are reminded about (WP:NOT#FORUM) and that specifically citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion. Editors should have further stressed the need for NPOV by focusing on (WP:YESPOV) wich specifically states that in an article Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.. By ignoring Wikipedia Policy and engaging a debate on this topic editors turned this discussion into a debate and allowed it to spiral out of scope for article talk pages. Please remember that talk pages are meant to discuss the content of an article and not views of editors about the subject. Can we get some comments from Noleander at this point? -Wikishagnik (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? - @Nucleophilic: you suggested using the term "faculty/staff" for the article. I didn't see the source which supported that ... could you again provide the source and a quote from the source which says "faculty/staff" or something similar? PS: To all: the DRN forum is limited to discussions of content only. Any discussions of behavior (e.g. canvassing, sockpuppetry, etc) are not permitted here. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional? - Users Ben and Smokefoot (and others) above have suggested that a couple of editors have been engaging in improper promotion of Peter Proctor, which would be a violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION policy. If the promotional efforts are disruptive, the best forum for addressing those is at WP:AN, or if a single editor is the culprit, at WP:RFCU. The DRN process focuses only on content issues (specific facts stated within articles) so this DRN case could be used to analyze individual sentences within an article. The WP:Notability guideline applies to entire articles, not specific sentences within articles; so if we assume that Peter Proctor meets WP notability guidelines, then the article can/should exist and the next step is simply to assess the accuracy of material within the article. If the article is overly detailed, then specific sentences/sections should be proposed for deletion (even if sourced) if they are non-encyclopedic. Of particular concern is the assertion by user Smokefoot: "at the same time, Proctor and Nucleophilic led a subtle effort to denigrate the achievements of people who are generally accepted as pioneers and innovators - such as the Nobel prize winners" ... adding puffery into Peter Proctor is one thing, but removing or distorting information in other articles is unacceptable. If anything like that has happened, talk page discussions, RfCs, and DRN cases can be used to remedy the situation. --Noleander (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, as an editor that works in the area of chemistry, I have also come across the Peter Proctor-related edits. My perception agrees with those of Smokefoot and Benjah-bmm27: there appears to be a determined effort to promote Peter Proctor here on Wikipedia to a degree that far outweighs his actual contributions to science, presenting a misleading narrative to the reader. ChemNerd (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your input. If there are any specific changes to Peter Proctor article you think should be made, please describe them here (with a rationale). As for the bigger issue about violations of WP:NOTPROMOTION, I'll leave it up to other editors to decide if they want to lodge complaints at WP:AN or WP:RFCU (again, WP:DRN is not the appropriate forum for promotional issues, because that is considered a behavior/conduct problem, and DRN is limited to content issues). --Noleander (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Single-payer health care, United States National Health Care Act

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by CartoonDiablo on 19:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Single-payer health care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
United States National Health Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Public opinion on health care reform in the United States#POV Check (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The main dispute which has been going on for months is whether certain polls are polls of single-payer healthcare or simply polls of "various levels of government involvement" in healthcare. Me and Scjessey are of the opinion that they are single-payer polls and Thargor Orlando/North8000/Arzel are of the latter.

This is the contested version in question.

Me and Scjessey hold that the consensus of virtually every reliable source is that they are single-payer polls but the other editors challenge this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

How do you think we can help?

By deciding whether or not they are single-payer polls.

Opening comments by Scjessey

This again? "Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in." At the beginning, I was an uninvolved editor brought in to mediate a dispute between Cartoon and Thargor. It quickly became apparent that Thargor was not interested in resolving anything and preferred to just revert anything that suggested Americans were in favor of a single-payer healthcare system (reliable sources be damned). Dispute resolution broke down because of Thargor's intransigence and tendentiousness. I abandoned the topic because I was fed up with beating my head against the Thargor brick wall. North and Arzel aren't really involved in this dispute other than to offer ideological support to Thargor. In essence, the topic suffers from a lack of editors and opinions, allowing non-mainstream views to have a greater voice than they otherwise would. I would still prefer to have nothing to do with this matter, but I will monitor this debate and chip in where appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Thargor Orlando

Once again, CartoonDiablo rushes to DRN as opposed to hashing things out at talk. The issue is not really content at this point, as the result of more eyes at the articles is resulting in an actual consensus coming about. The issue is CD's conduct at this stage - edit warring, 3RR, misuse of sources, violations of basic verifiability policy. These are not things DRN is designed to solve. We're here because CD's continued forum shopping has yet to result in his viewpoint winning, and I'm sure he'll try to escalate it yet again when this also fails to go his way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by North8000

As a preface, I tend to try to help "right wrongs" regarding happenings at articles and forums regarding following Wikipedia policies and guidelines and helping individuals that are improperly getting beat up. As such, as often as not I am supporting folks whose real world POV's are the exact opposite of mine. In this case most of the above applies, except that I am ambivalent regarding any related RW topics.

I have not been involved in any such dispute. I briefly commented on this in November and then was asked to look in by an uninvolved admin which I have done over the last 2 days. What I saw is behavioral problems by CartoonDiablo, and some rough "ganging up" by CartoonDiablo and Scjessey against Thargor Orlando (who was making policy-based arguments and edits) and my efforts have been towards something that will get those resolved. We may have been inching on a path towards that which I suspect is why this DRN was opened (as a smokescreen). The question in the posting is also fatally flawed. Whatever they are trying to do it should be in terms of article content. The closest legit topic I can think of would be "shall the wording in the article identify those as single-payer polls"? And the answer to the latter is given much direction by Wikipedia core policies. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Arzel.

It would appear that there have been several polls about various health care policies, many of which are worded in reference to Medicare. Some advocacy groups have used the results of these polls to push a point of view regarding a single-payor health care plan. CD believes that since these sources call these polls single-payor like that they can be used in this article to present that POV, much like the single-payor advocates are doing. If polls are to be used (which in general are pretty worthless for complex questions like this) then they should be limited to poll questions which specifically ask the single-payor question, anything else is simply pushing a specific POV. Arzel (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Single-payer health care, United States National Health Care Act discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

As no one else seems to want to take this discussion, I will. Is the dispute for everyone about adding "One Nation, Uninsured," New York Times and "If the Health Care Mandate Is Struck Down, Single-Payer Becomes the Best Choice", Huffington Post to the Public opinion section of the article? Some of you did not even talk about the content dispute, rather focusing on the behavioural aspect. If the dispute is adding these two references, here's another question. Why have these 2 references when there are 6 other references? ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 13:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor opinion. I completely agree with Ebe123. Also, with such an exhaustively covered topic, why are you having such a difficult time finding clearer sources? Andrew³²⁷ 23:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than that, that was simply the latest addition. The question is whether the polls themselves describe a single payer system (and thus whether the belong in the article). To copy-edit a bit from a previous discussion here is the consensus of the reliable sources:

"A system in which the government provides universal health insurance is often referred to as "single payer,"" - New York Times
"In poll after poll, a majority of Americans have expressed support for single-payer health" - Huffington Post
"Kucinich points to public opinion polls from...CBS News showing support for single-payer health care" - NPR
"We also note that the Bloomberg poll doesn't use the word "single-payer" (even though it amounts to the same thing)" - Politifact
NPR (dead link)

This is affirmed by advocacy groups:

The counterargument, literally, is the POV assertion that all those sources are wrong and that they are not single-payer polls. That's why the goal of this DRN is to decide whether or not they are polls of single-payer healthcare or not. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Andrew (I don't know how I missed this initially), with such a politically-charged topic, and the amount of misinformation in the media (pro- and anti-), it becomes difficult to sift through the bad to find the good. Then you have the added bonus of the assumption that if someone is critical of a certain source, it's clearly evidence that they're critical against the topic. None of the editors involved know my position on single payer health care or HR676, but they're absolutely certain that, since I don't think certain sources are appropriate for Wikipedia or that media outlets misusing terminology should be handled with a critical eye, I'm pushing a "right wing POV." The entire debate is poisoned in the public sphere, and it becomes poisoned here as a result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we're up to behavior at this point is because CD refuses to justify his sources on the talk page, as requested of him for months. The sources largely speak for themselves - there are advocates who make false claims, and CD wants to add them anyway. It's against policy, and when it's pointed out, he uses dispute resolution to make a case in order to get sanctions against others, edit warring if he must.

As for the sources, we've been trying to hash it out at the talk pages to limited success because of the behavior of certain involved editors. I suggest anyone who wants to pitch in take a look at the talk pages at these two pages as well as the now-merged Talk:Public opinion on health care reform in the United States. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for behavior (anyone can check my edits). Are you going to explain why you don't think they are single-payer polls or why the NYT, Huffington Post, NPR and Politifact are "advocates who make false claims"? CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already have, numerous times, at the talk page. You refuse to engage or answer the questions, claiming false consensus or simply stonewalling. That's why this is an issue about your behavior at this point, independent as to whether this is the forum for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thagor, you must stop talking about conduct. Thagor, explain why do you do not like these sources. Also, what's your sources to say that the sources are false claims? Not taking any sides here, but you need to explain. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 14:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is exactly about conduct at this point. If you go to the talk pages involved, you'll see exactly the problems indicated, both content and conduct. It will not be fruitful to paste 100s of kbs of text here yet again, but what was removed handles some of it as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thagor, say something useful or go away from the article and CD. You do not seem to care about the article, nor are you helping the discussion. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 16:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting commentary. Are you saying that my months of attempts at building consensus at the article have not been useful? That opening at discussion at the NPOV noticeboard once things came to a stalemate was not useful? Which is it, exactly? Have you read the discussions yet? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that your comments here have not been useful. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. We're in a dispute because of CD's behavior, so it's hard to separate. Instead of making value judgments that he's sure to misinterpret, it would be more helpful to look at the evidence and help come to a conclusion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CartoonDiablo's arguments and sourcing seem very solid. Thargor has been unable to make a compelling case for rejecting them. The "months of attempts at building consensus" are really just months of WP:IDL. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is almost entirely reliant on partisan advocacy. The text of the sources doesn't indicate what CD claims they do, nor is he able to defend them - if they truly claimed what he beleives they do, this wouldn't be a long-standing issue. This has nothing to do with what I "like," as you have no concept of my beliefs on any of the matters. It's an issue of policy, plain and simple. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You perceive these sources to be "partisan advocacy", but that is only because you view them through your own ideological lens. What we actually have are a series of reliable sources (such as the NYT, NPR, etc.) that are verified by other sources that include advocacy groups. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pose the same question to you that CD avoided - if the NYT calls a chair a goat, are we supposed to simply take it at face value or understand that reliable sources need to be examined? As WP:RS notes about news sources, "[w]hether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." In these cases, we can clearly see that the sources are not accurate regarding what the polls are stating. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will that happen. No. We're talking about real risk, not hypothetical risk. Also, how can you see that it is not accurate; it's like throwing out all the scientific data you think is incorrect. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 18:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the last year, we've had news outlets misreport Supreme Court cases, terrorist attacks, and school shootings. It is not at all absurd to look at the facts and see that media outlets can be wrong about this issue, especially when we know what single payer health care is and how it contrasts with a) the questions asked in the polls and b) the understanding of the population (as noted by politifact). The issue is even more pronounced in the National Health Care Act article, which is about a specific bill that hasn't ever been polled as far as I can tell. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't entered this dispute, and I'd rather not, because I don't think I can stomach the lies from partizans and editors on both sides. However, I would have to say that we, as Wikipedians, are not required to include relevant material from reliable sources if the material is objectively wrong, even if no reliable source makes a contrary assertion. Others disagree. We are not allowed to include material from reliable sources where they are clearly quoting an unrelaible source. (Few) others disagree with that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, SCJ, there is no doubt that organizations like "Physicians for National Health Care," "Medicare for All," and "Western PA Coaltition for Single-payer healthcare" are partisan advocacy organizations. It's not even a question regardless of my "ideological lens" (which you would have no idea how to identify). Furthermore, we know, ideologically, where people like Dennis Kucinich or Paul Krugman stand on certain issues - it requires us to look at the claims critically and treat them as they are. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But these are merely supporting existing reliable sources per WP:V. We are not relying on such adovacy groups as the sole source. You cannot throw all the sources out just because you disagree with some of them. And just because a source is an advocacy group, it doesn't necessarily follow that everything they say is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're not actually supporting existing reliable sources, that's the point. If the sources say A, but the "supporting sources" say B, we cannot assume B. And yes, the only sources saying B are advocacy and/or partisan in nature. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Thargor, what is your objection to each source individually? ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 21:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a detailed breakdown at the talk page here. As a group, I think there's also an issue with treating 20+ year polls as relevant to today, as well as positioning the article as saying X when Y is true by the evidence available. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Thargor's question "if the NYT calls a chair a goat, are we supposed to simply take it at face value or understand that reliable sources need to be examined?" We would look to a RS to verify that the NYT is wrong, not base it off your opinion.

Thus far, Thargor is claiming that, in his opinion, all those reliable sources are wrong. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't keep repeating that in hopes that it becomes true. Of the actual reliable sources, the polls themselves, we see exactly what they are by what they ask. Some ask about single payer, my protest has not been with them, but rather the ones that are not. Just because a writer for Huffington or an advocacy group claims something is single payer does not require us to agree, especially if it's quite clear that it is not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion of what "the polls themselves" are. We go by what the NYT, Politifact, Huffington Post and NPR say not what Thargor Orlando says. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my opinion, but the actual words of the text. We go by what the polls actually say, not how an opinion column labels it or how an advocacy group tries to spin it - that's not how using reliable sources works. Repeating things over and over do not make them true, no matter how often you do it. If you can show me, using the language of the polls, how they're single payer, I'll be glad to have that discussion further. They're all mapped out at the talk page individually for examination and discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every RS is saying that that is "what the polls actually say," that they are single-payer polls. Unless you are a reliable source yourself, your only violating WP:POV by inserting your perspective of what the polls say. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is patently untrue. For example, the Huffington Post link that claims it links to a 538 piece that synthesizes a number of polls regaridng the public option, not single payer. The Krugman piece talks about "universal health insurance" for a poll, as does the point from Kucinich at NPR. If they said "single payer," you'd be correct. They clearly do not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conerns Hi all - I am a new editor in this discussion but I have followed the discussion above and I have some questions, I hope will clear the picture. They are

(WP:OR) - Can opinion polls printed by news media be seriously considered to be neutral, independent and reliable? Isn't there editorial pressure to suppress / promote some findings? Can these polls be audited by third parties?
(WP:SYNTHESIS) - Are we editors trying to draw conclusions based on our analysis of printed material? Can we not instead find reliable sources that have done the job of analysing these polls and printed their results?
(MOS:JARGON) - This policy has some excellent suggestions for treating Jargons and I suggest the idea of creating a seperate article that explains single-payer polls and presents both sides of the argument with a NPOV, and creating a wikilink in this article pointing to it.

Although the third point is not exactly a concern but I am worried if the usage of the term single-payer polls might just be a buzzword whose deffinition is evolving as of now. Regards -Wikishagnik (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing those out Wikishagnik. As far as I can tell, the only third party interpretations of the polls are by the RSs (NYT, Huffington Post, Politifact etc.) or by the advocacy groups. These seem to me to be mostly satisfactory.

To the point about jargon, the topic is single-payer healthcare and these are polls measuring that which is simple enough. The only real jargon is for our purposes in this discussion (when people claim they are not polls of single-payer) not really for the articles in question. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So let's stick with the polls that only mention single payer health care, figure out a reasonable timetable in which the polling would be relevant, turn it into prose, and be done with it. You won't do that because you insist, against all available evidence, to put your POV on existing polls. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think any OR concerns come from the assumption (an assumption addressed by Politifact) that everyone views "universal health insurance" or "like Medicare" or "like Canada" or "single payer" the exact same way. If they did, polling would not be as all over the place as it is on the issues. That may result in synthesis problems as well, but it's more about poor use of sourcing than synthesizing or a jargon issue. We're talking at the talk page about perhaps having to do a wider-scale rewrite of all the health care delivery articles because of some of the overlap and misunderstanding, but that's a ways down the line, as we need to fix this issue first. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thargor says: "We go by what the polls actually say, not how an opinion column labels it or how an advocacy group tries to spin it." The only problem is, that is the WRONG way to use reliable sources. Wikipedia specifically prefers secondary reliable sources (newspaper columns) over primary reliable sources (polls). This project has always been more comfortable letting a secondary source interpret primary sources for us. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All true (except IMHO on the applicability to Thargor's statement) I think that what Thargor was saying is that this is a third case that is worse that either direct use of polls, or the poll data digested by a wp:rs. Namely when we aren't seeing or using either but instead see/use only the restatement of or interpretation of the poll by an advocacy organization. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. It's better to present the data as it is as opposed to allow partisans to cloud the issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by WP:PRIMARY, "[a] primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Given the problems we're seeing with the secondary descriptions often being nonfactual, we are better off using the primary sources within policy here, not allowing secondary sources to push an agenda. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to be saying which secondary sources are being "nonfactual" though? I'm more inclined to accept the word of an advocacy group (who, by their nature, are also "experts" on the subject) than the word of Judge Thargor. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly a difficult question. If a poll asks "X", and the respondent answers "X", and an advocacy group insists it says "Y", why are we bound to simply take what the advocacy group says? While I'm not arguing this, many would consider those advocacy groups to be questionable in this instance given their points of view. I think WP:RS is more instructive in this case: "[w]hether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." In this case, we can clearly assess the errors being made by these groups and sources (in some cases, with Politifact as a verified third opinion on the matter) as erroneous and treat them as such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case, other editors are disagreeing with your dismissal of certain sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a handful are. Not based in policy or the wording of the polls, however. I see plenty of appeals to authority, I see plenty of trust of partisans, but not a lot of facts. Stonewalling with "X says so" isn't really a good argument, while explaining how the question "Should the government in Washington provide national health insurance, or is this something that should be left only to private enterprise?" describes single payer would be a better one. I see a lot of the former, and none of the latter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, Thargor. In your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's my opinion, you can surely show me the diffs that demonstrate the latter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your "I see plenty of trust of partisans" comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not my opinion, it's documented fact. Look at the sources CD has offered in favor of his position: a liberal columnist for the New York Times, a liberal columnist for the Huffington Post, a liberal former Congressman, four single payer advocacy groups, and the misuse of a Politifact piece that argues *against* him. It's absolutely trust in partisans. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or put another way, respected columnists from the NYT and HuffPo, a respected Congressman, four advocacy groups who can provide expert analysis of the single-payer system and Politifact. One man's partisan is another man's guru. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They can be well-respected and partisan. No one's arguing that it's either/or, but it is agenda-driven, no doubt. The sources bear that out fairly well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I don't see how you can get "partisan" from any of these sources. For example, I read Krugman's support of a single-payer system as something based on sound economic sense, whereas you apparently see it as a just another liberal supporting a liberal idea. Everyone views things through the lens of their own biases, so I can understand why you've adopted this rather extreme position. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You, again, do not know what my biases are. You're assuming plenty, but we know that Krugman is a liberal and even if he believes it's sound economic sense, it doesn't change what the position is. Krugman is a poor source for justification anyway, as he doesn't label the source he's referring to as single payer anyway. He's only being used as a fallacious appeal to authority because of his POV. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I have no opinion about who or what is right or wrong here, nor have I made an extensive examination of what's gone before. All I've done is to read what's been said here and the comment and question I have is this: We cannot do here at DRN what is asked in the How do you think we can help? section, i.e. decide whether or not they are single-payer polls. This forum cannot make binding content decisions, nor can any of the other regular dispute resolution processes here. And that brings me to my question: What do the disputants think that we can do here? Is there any point in continuing to re-hash this discussion? To that end, I would raise the effect of the Consensus policy: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Is it time to perhaps ask an administrator to make a consensus determination and close the discussion at the article talk pages? Or perhaps instead to move on to getting the entire community involved through a RFC? I just get the impression that nothing is happening here except a rehash of what's been said many times before and I wonder whether or not this thread ought or ought not to be closed as "failed." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if DRN could make a content decision, the malformed question poses the question as a finding of fact, not of content. Just another of the multiple reasons that this is inappropriate, particularly at this time. North8000 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the problem lies in a nutshell. CartoonDiablo seemingly believes that DR comes to binding conclusions. This was not brought here to come to a conclusion, but to build a case: this is seen by CD when he constantly threatens to go to ArbCom if this is not "solved" here. Personally, it would be valuable for people who see this to come to the talk page and help build a consensus there. The behavior issues will be dealt with eventually because I don't see any other result for CD's current track, but this being brought up at AN/I got basically no attention, nor did the revert warring reported result in anything from the administrative team. I am under no delusion that this can result in anything regarding certain involved parties on its own. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the malformedness of the original DRN proposal, it has been my hope that DRN could (at the very least) mediate discussion between the two parties. Previously, this would've been a prime candidate for MEDCAB. That being said, the parties are dug in deeper than the NHL and NHLPA were! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet they worked it out. I don't think a) keeping it in prose and b) sticking to only polls that deal explicitly with single payer is a bad compromise. The disagreement is baffling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we should get a third opinion or comment and then continue here. And to the point about compromise, there's no compromise between violating POV and not doing so, if the overwhelming consensus of the sources says something than that is what we use, not a compromise between what the sources say and what some editors believe. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If the sources say something, that's what we use. That's why we should not be calling the bulk of those polls single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes so if the NYT, Huffington Post, NPR, Politifact etc. call the polls single-payer polls even if they don't use the words single-payer, then we call them single-payer polls. Otherwise it would be WP:Fringe. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in most cases, that's not actually true, but even if it were, it would not be fringe, but based in WP:V, an actual policy. Refer to the discussion above. Also, again, take some time and show on the talk page of the article how the individual polls meet the standard of single payer health care if you can. You could save a significant amount of time by not avoiding that, given you've decided to open an RfC now while this is ongoing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right that's why I suggested temporarily closing this DRN discussion until the RfC was done. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many more forums do we need to go to? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Campaign for_Nuclear_Disarmament

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Pelarmian on 11:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Pelarmian (talk · contribs)
Boundarylayer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the article about the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, BoundaryLayer wants to include a controversial claim that its symbol, the well known peace sign, was used by the Nazis. Following lengthy discussion with BoundaryLayer, I reported the existence of the claim, citing Time magazine and Ken Kolsbun's history of the peace sign.

BoundaryLayer says it's not enough to report the controversy, the claim must be included as a fact. A Third Opinion advised that the article should remain neutral about whether the Nazis used the symbol or not. BoundaryLayer ignored that advice and added an edit saying the symbol was similar to "the insignia of the 3rd panzer Division of WWII in usage from 1941 until the end of the war. A number of experts in symbolism have noted that the CND symbol is similar to the Algiz Tudesrune, originally a Nordic runic symbol, but in present day Germany and Austria it is often called the Todesrune, the rune of death, or the inverted life rune."

This is tendentious editing. It synthesises sources that don't actually say that the CND symbol is similar to a symbol used by the Nazis. "Experts in symbolism" is also a tendentious phrase.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third Opinion requested.

How do you think we can help?

Advise whether or not the article should endorse this claim and whether the controversy is significant enough even to be reported, and, if so, in what terms it should be reported.

Opening comments by Boundarylayer

Hello, I haven't been ignoring the debate, I've simply not logged into Wiki in a few days.

The dispute resolves over the fact that another user does, number one, not wish for readers to know what ominious symbol the republican paper was referring to, and number two, and most bizarrely, they do not wish for the opinions of experts in symbolism, nor the opinion of the former head of the CND herself, to be included in the article.

Linked below is the edit that was recently removed. None of the references provided are in dispute. I would be glad to discuss with the other user, or collaborate on an edit that they would feel appropriate, however, sadly, this does not appears to be something they wish to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campaign_for_Nuclear_Disarmament&oldid=531168110#Organised_opposition_to_CND

Boundarylayer (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Campaign for_Nuclear_Disarmament discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Boundarylayer seems to be ignoring the discussion (see talk page of article), but I've left a comment on his talk page. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 16:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boundarylayer wants to insert into the CND article a statement saying that CND’s symbol was similar to “the insignia of the 3rd panzer Division of WWII” The claim is controversial and therefore needs particularly good references, which Boundarylayer does not provide. His edit synthesises sources to produce a statement that none of them makes and on the Talk page his lengthy justifications also contain synthesis and original research.

The source he cites for the “Algiz Tudesrune” is Carl J. Liungman’s Book of Symbols. What Liungman actually says is that the CND sign “can be seen as composed of a Tyr rune, lengthened upward, or by the rune Y, turned upside down." He does not mention “the Algiz Tudesrune” and he does not mention the 3rd Panzer Division. (Liungman, by the way, has an amateur interest in semiotics, has not published in refereed journals and is not recognised as an "expert in symbolism" by anyone with academic credibility. His Book of Symbols appears to be vanity publishing.)

Boundarylayer cites Time magazine, which says of the peace sign, “some experts say it was a letter in an ancient Nordic alphabet,” but it does not mention “a Nordic runic symbol” and it does not mention the 3rd Panzer Division.

Peggy Duff, the ex-general secretary of CND, is said to support this connection between CND and the Nazis, but in the citation given she does nothing of the kind. She does not say that the CND symbol was the “Algiz Tudesrune” or a “Nordic” runic symbol (she describes it merely as a “runic symbol”), she does not say that “in Germany and Austria it is called the Todesrune” and she does not say that it was “the insignia of the 3rd Panzer Division.”

The controversial claims about the peace sign are already referred to in the article. This careless edit only adds Boundarylayer’s original research, which has nothing to do with the history of CND. Pelarmian (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amir-Abbas Fakhravar

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kabirat on 11:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Amir-Abbas Fakhravar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Kabirat (talk · contribs)
Siavash777 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The subject is a political prisoner from Iran. Several individuals who were also political prisoners in Iran (some of which were housed in the same cell as the subject) were interviewed by Mother Jones magazine wherein they gave evidence suggesting that the subject's accounts regarding his escape and his statute are false. In light of this information, editor Kabriat created a section outlining these controversies. Editor Siavash777 (which bears the same name as the subject's nickname) has repeatedly reverted these comments, simply wishing to relegate the topic to the following sentence "According to an article published in Mother Jones, a leftist magazine, some of other Iranian political activists criticizing Fakhravar's story."

During discussions on the issue Siavash777 argued that "the entire article is based on rummers [sic] and Mr. Fakhravar's enemies or competitors or Islamic Republic of Iran's informants who wants to attack Fakhravar and didn't have any fact never ever. You can't find any single fact for any of accusations made by writer of this article". In support of his accusations Siavash777 cites to a blog. Kabriat noted that the entire page currently has POV issues and that most of the biography is sourced to Front Page Magazine, a publication with "an ideological slant and questionable reliability." Kabriat then noted "Second, the Mother Jones article is reliable. It's not a "blog", it's an article written by Laura Rozen, an expert and frequent commentator and journalist on Middle East affairs (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/authors/laura-rozen). The article is also based on a variety of eye-witnesses testimonies. Third, to the extent we intend to rely upon Front Page Mag for any assertions, then there's not much of an argument to exclude the contrary position taken in the Mother Jones article. Lastly, all of the accusations are unfounded and in fact sourced to one blog which, coincidentally enough, seems to idolize the subject."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The topic was posted the talk page for the subject's article and the noticeboard on the biography of living persons, an archive which can be found here: (Volunteer has deleted the off wiki link. All archives links should be limited to Wikipedia archives only)--Amadscientist (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can help?

It would be helpful if a more neutral individual could moderate the dispute and recommend compromises.

Opening comments by Siavash777

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Amir-Abbas Fakhravar discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carolina-Clemson rivalry, Dabo Swinney, Clemson-South Carolina football brawl

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by LesPhilky on 23:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Carolina-Clemson rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dabo Swinney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Clemson-South Carolina football brawl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

This issue is a rather larger one than one single content dispute. GarnetAndBlack holds a deep-seated hatred and bias against Clemson University. Any pages related to Clemson, he edits with extreme bias or retaliates in some way if a Clemson user (like myself) corrects one of his erroneous edits. GarnetAndBlack is extremely rude and abrasive to all Clemson editors, and he makes threats with Wikipedia policy or removes entire sections of content for minor edits. He often demands a consensus be made on the talk page, yet he still ignores said consensuses and continues to revert changes. His edits are often made with snide, clearly biased comments against Clemson (such as trash talk when updating a Clemson loss to a statistic box).

Recently, he deleted positive, factual information about Clemson head coach Dabo Swinney when a minor edit and citation could have been added instead. These edits were done to retaliate immediately against my edits to the Clemson-South Carolina football brawl page that corrected factual errors that painted Clemson in a bad light. In other words, he often "throws the baby out with the bathwater" rather than making minor corrections if the information paints Clemson or the school's coaches in a positive light. Attempts to communicate with him usually result in personal attacks or he is non-responsive. On one occasion, a fellow Gamecock fan of his even had to point out that he was off-base with his insistence that an extremely questionable source that painted Clemson in an unfavorable light not be removed.

Since I am a Clemson fan, in the spirit of Wikipedia policy for unbiased and factual information, I refrain from editing Univ. of SC pages because I know I'm not the best person for this job. However, GarnetAndBlack bias has run rampant in editing Clemson pages, exhibits "ownership", he exudes extreme hostility to those who question him, and I also believe he is "gaming the system" with his constant threats over Wikipedia policies.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

About a year ago, GarnetAndBlack and I did not handle our conflicts appropriately. I admit that. Since then, however, I have tried to work with him in making productive edits. I've reached out to him on various talk pages, only to be ignored unless I make an edit he disagrees with. Then I am either threatened or he orders me to find a consensus, although there's really only the two of us editing. Twice I've had to bring in third parties to resolve it. He addresses me rudely even when I am polite

How do you think we can help?

Well, I'm hoping a third party can open his eyes to his bias and hostility without having to go to arbitration. I'm hoping a third party can show how the bias and utter hatred of all things Clemson severely impacts his ability to edit pages about Clemson without compromising the integrity of the pages. While I have my own bias, I do not harbor such hatred towards Univ. of SC (I actually do some work for them that brings new students to the school). Thank you.

Opening comments by GarnetAndBlack

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.

This will be my first and last comment here. Thank you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this illustrates my points. Rather than denying or refuting any of these points, he dismisses the issue altogether. Please note that GarnetAndBlack has deleted some of the discussions on the Talk pages in an attempt to hide the problems. Also, the link to DRN said it was for content AND conduct disputes.--LesPhilky (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even now, he is trying to delete my comments in this discussion (he deleted my above reply). His behavior during this dispute resolution request is a snapshot of how he generally behaves when working with other editors.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Clmsntigr

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Carolina-Clemson rivalry, Dabo Swinney, Clemson-South Carolina football brawl discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:List of Young Justice Episodes#Edit-warring, User talk:LoveWaffle#Unacceptable

– New discussion.

Filed by LoveWaffle on 06:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:List of Young Justice episodes#Edit-warring (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:LoveWaffle#Unacceptable (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

LoveWaffle (talk · contribs)
Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is basically a question over how similar a re-worded statement can be from its source without qualifying as a copyright violation. Particularly, this concerns brief plot synopses for upcoming episodes of the Cartoon Network animated series Young Justice announced via press release. I provided a re-worded version of the synopses for the episodes' entries on the List of Young Justice episodes. Jack Sebastian then removes them, calling them copyright violations, and replaces them with a re-worded version that, in my opinion, is significantly closer to the source material. Since I consider that a copyright violation, I restore the old version (mine) of the page. Jack Sebastian removes them again and...you see where this is going.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Jack Sebastian and I have, in simplest terms, had it out with this dispute. In two different locations, even. However, as Jack Sebastian is now making personal attacks and doing everything in his ability to block me from contributing to the discussion, my hands are now tied.

How do you think we can help?

As I said, Jack Sebastian has made personal attacks and is doing everything to keep me out of the discussion. To be honest, I don't know if I could continue the discussion without doing the same. I need the dispute to be resolved quickly before this escalates and at least one of us winds up blocked.

Opening comments by Jack Sebastian

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Talk:List of Young Justice Episodes#Edit-warring, User talk:LoveWaffle#Unacceptable discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Juan Manuel de Rosas

– New discussion.

Filed by Lecen on 20:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Juan Manuel de Rosas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Lecen (talk · contribs)
Cambalachero (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For the past three years Cambalachero and I have clashed over certain aspects of Argentine history. The main issue right now is about Juan Manuel de Rosas who ruled Argentina from 1829 until 1852. I pointed out that he is regarded by historians a dictator and a ruthless one. Cambalachero, on the other hand, says that historians regard Rosas a democratically elected leader.

This issue was discussed years ago in Platine War talk page and was recently discussed in Juan Manuel de Rosas own article. I requested a Third Opinion and Noleander volunteered to help. After a long debate he agreed with me that Rosas was a dictator, that historians generally agree that he was a dictator and that Cambalachero's view is Revisionism and can not be taken as mainstream view regarding the matter. Nonetheless Cambalachero has refused to back down and that's why I came here. I need the help of other authors in dealing with this problem.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

1) Long and futile discussion in Platine War talk page.
2) Long and futile discussion in Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page.
3) Requested third opinion from a neutral editor.

How do you think we can help?

Cambalachero has argued that the article should say that Rosas was a dictator according to some historians but not to others. That Rosas killed thousands of innocent people according to some historians and none according to others. And so on and on. For obvious reasons, an article in Wikipedia can not be presented as two heads sharing a same body. As Noleander remarked: ""If the majority of mainstream, secondary sources hold a particular view, then that view can be stated in the encyclopedia's voice and need not be attributed. For example: evolution vs. creationism - those are two POVs, but the majority of scientists support evolution, therefore WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply and "evolution is true" can be (and is) stated in the encyclopedia's voice. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV only applies when the sources are biased or the POV is held by sources that are in the minority"

Opening comments by Cambalachero

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

First of all, Lecen misrepresents my words. I do not say that historians, as an unified body, say that Rosas was democratic. I pointed that there are many who said so, that the view of Rosas as a dictator is not universal, and that modern Argentine historians have already ended that dispute. Although the historians who did not condemn Rosas were known as "revisionists", the most respected Argentine historians and heads of academic institutions (all there in the talk) point that this "revisionism" has been incorporated into the standard academic knowledge of Argentina; thus, a paradigm shift took place and it is not revisonism anymore. Again, it is not me who says that, it is fully referenced (it may be long or boring to read, but the references are there). And respected tertiary sources pointing the current consensus over a topic are better than discussing ourselves which is that consensus. As for English-speaking sources, John Lynch points himself that Rosas is completely forgotten in it, that nobody studies him; then discussing the current consensus among English-speaking sources is abstract and mostly pointless. To avoid Systemic bias we should consider the body of authors who do work heavily on this and related topics (Argentine Spanish-speaking historians).

In short: Lecen wants the article to say, in Wikipedia's voice, "Rosas was a dictator". I think instead that the article should point who considered Rosas a dictator, who did not, and which is the current state of the historiographical dispute (which is resolved). As it is done in the article Oliver Cromwell, the focus of a similar real-world controversy, and checked and edited by far more English-speaking editors: the word is present but always attributed, never in a "Cromwell was a dictator" way, even when we wouldn't lack sources to reference it. Besides, Wikipedia has a policy to avoid contentious labels. Cambalachero (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel de Rosas discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Comment - Last week I tried to help resolve the dispute by offering a Third Opinion in the Kuan Manuel de Rosas talk page. For that reason, I'll recuse myself from acting as a DRN volunteer here. FWIW, my opinion is that there are two schools of thought about Rosas: (1) That he was a dictator/tyrant; or (2) he was a nice guy, but was forced into his authoritarian role by circumstances. The article currently contains virtually no mention that many historians consider him a dictator, so some white-washing has been definitely been going on. At a minium, the article needs to state that "many historians consider him a dictator". The next issue is whether the article can state that "Rosas is a dictator" in the encyclopedia's voice. User Lecen provided very strong sources showing that mainstream historians do consider him a dictator, so using the encyclopedia's voice seems warranted. The other editors (MarshalN20 and Cambalachero) claim that the "he is not a dictator" viewpoint is equally well represented by historians, but when pressed for sources, they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc). --Noleander (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 474: / Line 474: @@
 === Juan Manuel de Rosas discussion ===
 <div style="font-size:smaller">Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div>
+'''Comment''' - Last week I tried to help resolve the dispute by offering a [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]] in [[Talk:Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas#Third_opinion|the Kuan Manuel de Rosas  talk page]].  For that reason, I'll recuse myself from acting as a DRN volunteer here.   FWIW, my opinion is that there are two schools of thought about Rosas:  (1) That he was a dictator/tyrant; or (2) he was a nice guy, but was forced into his authoritarian role by circumstances.   The article currently contains  virtually no mention that many historians consider him a dictator, so some white-washing has been definitely been going on.  At a minium, the article needs to state that "many historians consider him a dictator".  The next issue is whether the article can state that "Rosas is a dictator" ''in the encyclopedia's voice''.  User Lecen provided very strong sources   showing that mainstream historians ''do'' consider him a dictator, so using the encyclopedia's voice seems warranted.  The other editors (MarshalN20  and  Cambalachero) claim that the "he is not a dictator" viewpoint is equally well represented by historians, but when pressed for sources, they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc).  --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards